The NZ Herald launched a “crowdsourcing” initiative to go digging into political donations after the returns were released by they Electoral Commission.

It is the sort of panty sniffing behaviour we’ve come to expect from the Herald.

Basically they are trying to find ¬†donors and then single them out for this donation or that donation and try to pass some sort of moral judgment on that.

Little wonder then that donors try to remain as anonymous as they can.

Essentially though the Herald has found nothing, but after touting their great initiative with much fanfare they had to write something. David Fisher was obviously busy making up something else so they pulled in Matt Nippert to write the hit job.

An analysis of electoral finance declarations shows more than 80 per cent of donations to National Party candidates were channelled through party headquarters in a loophole described as akin to legal “laundering”.

National’s heavy reliance on funding candidates with donations from the party – shown in a Herald study to account for more than $1m out of $1.2m raised by their candidates for the 2014 general election – was a “striking use of electoral law that appears to be laundering the money”, said Otago University political science lecturer Bryce Edwards.

Electoral law requires candidates to reveal the identity of donors who contribute $1,500 or more, but political parties can keep donors secret even if they give up to $15,000.

Dr Edwards said the channelling of candidate donations through parties had “become a way around” having to disclose more information about the source of campaign funds.

“It’s not illegal and it’s up to different interpretations whether it’s ethical or not, but there should now be heat on politicians to explain what’s going on and to tighten up this loophole,” he said.

Most days I find something in the NZ Herald that really makes me angry. The number of times I have read things that are simply not true or have had massive embellishment is astounding. Take this utter nonsense that the NZ Herald leads with this morning.

According to the once proud bastion of the fourth estate,

Television mogul Simon Cowell – whose company Syco Entertainment created The X Factor reality format – had no knowledge MediaWorks had used convicted killer Shae Brider on The X Factor NZ and is taking the matter “very seriously.”

That sounds very ominous indeed, except that Simon Cowell said none of that at all. Read more »

Wide concerns among the media and the public have led the Ombudsman to launch an investigation into Official Information Act practices in the public sector.
The Herald may have been entitled to form the view that departmental rules and guidelines, including requirements for consultation, do open the way to political influence and interference in information releases.
But the documents provided to the Herald, and referred to in the article, do not grant the minister the freedom to change whatever is released.
Therefore the part-sentence included in the article is factually incorrect and the Council upholds the complaint on that basis.

Press Council members considering the complaint were Sir John Hansen, Chris Darlow, Tim Beaglehole, Liz Brown, Jenny Farrell, Sandy Gill, Marie Shroff, Vernon Small, Mark Stevens and Stephen Stewart.
John Roughan took no part in the consideration of this complaint.

Apparently when I publish publicly available information from QV and other public sources as to the address, value and other information about a ‘journalist’ who likes to do the same thing to the subjects of his book it is a gross invasion of privacy that requires public sanction, official complaints, and complaints to other bodies as well. All despite the fact that the same ‘journalist’ is listed in the public directory, the electoral roll plus submissions to parliamentary select committees that all publish the same address for the world to see.

I look forward then to the left wing blogs, David Fisher, John Drinnan, Matt Nippert and John Campbell all being outraged over the publication of the private details of Mark Hotchin, his wife, and his assets all over the Herald on Sunday today in a rather derogatory article designed to continue the vilification of a man who still remains uncharged for any crime and despite that has his assets still sequestered by the same judge who let Kim Dotcom splash the cash despite him actually being charged with real crimes.

For most people, shelling out $3.4 million on a plush Waiheke Island pad would be trading up.

But for former Hanover Group director Mark Hotchin it seems a case of trading down.

I thought it would be cool to give people some vicarious pleasure by having someone else beat the crap out of me on their behalf. ¬†Steve Kilgallon writes:

Cameron Slater says he knows he sells newspapers, so now he’s ready to sell pay-per-view television – even if he knows the viewers might be switching on to watch him get knocked out.

The controversial Whale Oil blogger and the subject of the Dirty Politics scandal will make his ring debut in Christchurch on March 28, against former New Zealand test cricketer Jesse Ryder.

And if the fight goes well, Slater has a list of opponents he would like to meet next – headed by Dirty Politics author Nicky Hager, television host John Campbell and New Zealand Herald journalists David Fisher and Matt Nippert. Read more »

Geez. ¬†I wonder ¬†why New Zealand official¬†stopped her at the border for a 7 hour interview before heading off to be with a man known for cyber crimes and on extradition charges to face criminal charges of racketeering and money laundering?